7/30    Any math major here?  There was a claim that "a^n + b^n = c^n has no
        positive integer solutions a,b,c,n for n > 2."  Ten years or so ago I
        heard that nobody has found yet either a proof or a counter-proof for
        this statement.  Is it still the case today?  Thx.
        \_ Is this the theorem that some enlightenment-era math
           type (Fermat? Euler?) claimed to have proven in the margin of
           one of his journals?  If so, I believe it was solved recently
           by a British guy using some rather advanced number theory.
           I'm not at all a math major, but I remember the story--
           supposedly Fermat/Euler/Whoever couldn't have proven it because
           the background theory or methodology didn't exist back then,
           and people seemed to believe that F/E/W knew he hadn't proven
           it, but claimed to have done so because he thought it was
           provable and wanted someone else to do it.  Apologies if I'm
           way off.
           \_ It was Fermat's Last Theorem, and he claimed to have a "truly
              remarkable proof" that would not fit within the constraints
              of the margin.  Euler tried and failed.  The British
              mathematician actually failed his first time, but then came
              back with a proof a year later that has since been accepted.
              It wasn't that it was impossible that Fermat had the proof,
              only that the British guy used something entirely different
              from what everybody else was trying to use, he did not use
              number theory.
              \_ It's not really accurate to say that Wiles ("the British
                 mathematician") "failed his first time." Even in between
                 the time a gap was found in his proof, and when he was
                 able to fix it, most experts thought the proof was
                 essentially correct. It would have been truly astounding
                 if a manuscript that large and that original had been
                 perfect the first time around. Also, I'm not sure what
                 you mean by "he did not use number theory," since the
                 whole paper is number theory. It is true that he used
                 lots of concepts that were not known in Fermat's time.
        \_ it still cannot be proven in Star Trek TNG, so it's hopeless
           now. ;)
           \_ "I love you, but I do not love you!"
              \_ "This statement cannot be proven."
        \_ It has been proven recently, after 300 years or so of failed
           attempts and false proofs. Search google for "fermat's last
           theorem" for details.
                 \- this was a troll, right? anyway, the people working on
                    the FLT were really working on deeper conjectures like
                    the ABC conjecture ... the  FLT would have been a small
                    byproduct. the people who claimed to be working on the
                    FLT itself were probably cranks. berkeley's K. Ribet
                    was a big player in this story. --psb
                    \_ There's an episode of Nova where he is talking about
                       FLT at Caffe Strada.